re: The sobering truth about 'Gun Rights'...ultimatelyPosted by VOR on 1/19/13 at 9:09 am to TheDoc

quote:The Supreme Court says so

Actually, no. That's not exactly what the Supreme Court said in the D.C. case.

quote: unreal man. That is hilariously ignorant and racist. You should be ashamed.

Nah. It was a joke aimed at a few of the posters who really do think they need guns to defend themselves from the impending federal tyrannical takeover and to shield themselves from a world they don't understand, they despise and that, nevertheless, is leaving them behind.

re: The sobering truth about 'Gun Rights'...ultimatelyPosted by Ace Midnight on 1/19/13 at 9:14 am to VOR

quote:the framers were referring to the ability of communities and/or states to maintain militias to defend themselves or assist the army in doing so.

Impossible interpretation. The Continental Army was disbanded quickly after the Revoluationary war. Until it was reformed in 1791, the "standing" army of the United States consisted of 1 regiment for the west (read, "deal with Indians") and 1 battery of artillery at West Point. The remainder of the army was the militia, mainly the irregular militias of the states.

No standing army is even called for in the original text of the constitution, but a navy was. Why do you suppose that was? Because we were built around the militia system.

quote:However, the Amendment is now interpreted by some people as having the sole purpose of allowing individuals to arm themselves with whatever the frick they want so that the can defend themselves against the Feds

The discussions in the Federalist Papers clearly contemplate this - again, if necessary.

re: The sobering truth about 'Gun Rights'...ultimatelyPosted by VOR on 1/19/13 at 9:18 am to Ace Midnight

quote:Impossible interpretation. The Continental Army was disbanded quickly after the Revoluationary war. Until it was reformed in 1791, the "standing" army of the United States consisted of 1 regiment for the west (read, "deal with Indians") and 1 battery of artillery at West Point. The remainder of the army was the militia, mainly the irregular militias of the states.

No standing army is even called for in the original text of the constitution, but a navy was. Why do you suppose that was? Because we were built around the militia system.

That's essentially the same thing in reality.

quote:The discussions in the Federalist Papers clearly contemplate this - again, if necessary.

And the Federalist Papers were adopted as law . . . when?

quote:Nice trolling.

Just having fun with a couple of the idjits on the board. Not everyone. And, btw, I don't have any problem whatsoever with individual gun ownership. I do believe in an urbanized 21st Century, however, there is nothing wrong or unconstitutional about reasonable regulation of that individual ownership. Scalia expressly acknowledged as much in his written opinion recognizing the right as an individual one.

re: The sobering truth about 'Gun Rights'...ultimatelyPosted by VOR on 1/19/13 at 9:20 am to TheDoc

quote:What about Chicago?

The Second Amendment provides Americans a fundamental right to bear arms that cannot be violated by state and local governments, the Supreme Court ruled.

The Court has ruled that it is, indeed, and individual right, and that was the issue at hand. However, the Court has expressly stated (Scalia of all people) that there can be reasonable regulation of firearms.

re: The sobering truth about 'Gun Rights'...ultimatelyPosted by Powerman on 1/19/13 at 9:23 am to VOR

quote:However, the Amendment is now interpreted by some people as having the sole purpose of allowing individuals to arm themselves with whatever the frick they want so that the can defend themselves against the Feds, liberals and Negroes.

Or I could put a dumb racist spin on it and say that your view is that negroes shouldn't be able to defend themselves against a racially oppressive police force.

re: The sobering truth about 'Gun Rights'...ultimatelyPosted by EthanL on 1/19/13 at 9:28 am to wryder1

quote:Why do YOU have to understand the "thrill" some people get from shooting, in order for YOU to justify us keeping them? It wasnt to long ago that A LOT of white people wouldnt have thought YOU deserved the same rights as the rest of us. Did that make them right? No, it did not. It doesnt matter what you or anyone else thinks about why people should or should not own a gun or type of gun. The point is, it is OUR right to own a gun. It doesnt matter the reason. I can own it because I believe a zombie apocolypse is coming, because I like shooting paper targets, hunting, self defense OR THAT I BELIEVE THIS COUNTRY IS GOING TO HELL IN A HANDBASKET AND I MAY BELIEVE I NEED IT FOR THE NEXT CIVIL WAR. The point is, it isnt any of your business why. Nobody asked why blacks deserved the same rights as the rest of us because it doesnt matter. What matters is, they are your rights and whether or not you want to exercise those rights is up to you. Gun owners choose to exercise their rights to own guns and that is all you should need to know. If you bash them or trample them, you become an instant hypocrite. As far as you not hanging around thug black people to reduce your chances of getting shot.... the key word is REDUCED because you sure as hell didnt eliminate that chance. Last time I checked, white people get shot just like black people.

I am not sure what you are arguing.

We, as human beings, have certain inalienable rights. Those transcend Sharia law, English laws, and as much as some of you hate to admit, American laws, ergo the Constitution.

Don't talk to me about blacks, their rights, and how they were treated. Whether the Constitution outlined it or not (and it didn't), the rights minorities fought for well over 100 years after the Constitution was written, those were inalienablehumanrights.

Now whether you agreed with that or not doesn't compute. You are comparing a Constitutional right (gun ownership) to something far greater. That's a mistake.

re: The sobering truth about 'Gun Rights'...ultimatelyPosted by ChineseBandit58 on 1/19/13 at 9:29 am to VOR

quote:However, the Amendment is now interpreted by some people as having the sole purpose of allowing individuals to arm themselves with whatever the frick they want so that the can defend themselves against the Feds, liberals and Negroes.

My God, VOR - you have gone off the deep end.

What the hell is wrong with you??

The first part of your post was well reasoned and worthy of discussion.

Then you go and shite the bed with this crap??

Sad.

quote:Nah. It was a joke aimed at a few of the posters who really do think

Wait - you claim that shite was a joke?

If you are serious, then please give us a heads up when you post a 'joke.' Jokes are supposed to have an element of humor - or has that word been redefined by leftists also?

I don't think it was a joke = I think you are a damned liar when you said it was a joke.

re: The sobering truth about 'Gun Rights'...ultimatelyPosted by VOR on 1/19/13 at 9:32 am to TheDoc

quote:VOR is full of shite and is a racist

How come? Because I said some right wingers want to defend themselves from black people? The term "Negroes" clearly was for effect, dumbass. Yeah, I think there are some guys on this board who own guns and who think the primary reasons are to defend themselves from the "criminal element . . . ahem" and the liberal, federal government that will one day attempt to take away their shite and/or put them in prison.